Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 09	January 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to further elaboration of the relationship awarded baronetcies have with notability. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Thomas, 1st Baronet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baronets are not presumed notable. WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge High Sheriff of Glamorgan seems to be a notable role - most of the list from that period have articles. Could do with expansion certainly. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having a knighthood would pass WP:ANYBIO. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was not awarded a knighthood, but inherited a baronetcy. Both allow a man to use the title "Sir", but they are very different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, right, didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Bridger! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets are above knights in the order of precedence, and "1st Baronet" means he didn't just inherit the title. Peter James (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I didn't take notice of the "1st" and got the names confused in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it seems he did inherit the title, so why he is called 1st Baronet is unclear to me! Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were other Thomas baronets before and after, and at the same time, but the title was not inherited from them, it's just that baronetcies, unlike any other topic in Wikipedia, are combined in one article even if the only thing they have in common is the name. Peter James (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas baronets. There's a long-standing consensus (hashed out over a decade ago, IIRC) that being a baronet does not confer a presumption of notability. (By contrast, pre-1999 peers generally due, as they enjoyed seats in a national legislature). I don't believe we've ever hashed out a consensus on high sheriffs, but I tend to lean the same way there. After the English Restoration, it was an essentially ceremonial office, conferring prestige on the landholding gentry but also considerable expense in entertaining judges of assize and providing them with a revenue. A great many individuals were appointed (typically 1 per year per county in EN/GB/UK). I've put quite a bit of time into referencing and linking lists of high sheriffs, and for this period, it looks like about 10-25% are bluelinks or plausible redlinks. Abdy baronets may give some idea of how to merge this without loss of useful information. Choess (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to a good merege - amended above. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but people with a lower or higher ranked title would be notable because of that title? Peter James (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higher yes probably, lower, no. Mccapra (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think people awarded knighthoods, a lower title, are notable? Both a ridiculous comment and flying against (a) WP:ANYBIO #1, and (b) consensus in many former AfDs that people awarded CBEs and above are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Baronets who have inherited their titles are not inherently notable, but the 1st Baronet clearly is, since he was awarded that title for his own achievements. We have always held that a CBE or above is notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, and a baronetcy is way above that level. Sorry, but this is a daft nomination that shows a lack of understanding of the honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFAIK there is a consensus that baronets are not presumed notable. In addition many first baronets simply bought their title, which is what the rank was created for (James 1 sold the title so he could avoid the need to ask parliament for money). It may or may not relate to any achievement. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not our place to decide whether it does or not. The fact is that it clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 if it was awarded rather than inherited. As has already been pointed out, the consensus is that baronets are not inherently notable if they inherited their titles. There is a very clear consensus that recipients of honours above CBE are notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, and baronets are three levels above that. You seem to be confusing inherited baronetcies with the original recipients. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom#Baronetcy has more info, and is an interesting read in itself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as the first baronet of that line, he's probably notable, since it was either secured due to patronage (a practice of William III of England rather than sale and purchase as his great-grandfather had done) or awarded as an honour. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete as article, restore to talk page, and remove copyright infringing text. If this had been created properly as an article it would be a very easy close: a combination of a SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. However, the situation is more complicated than that. The page does have to be returned to the original talk page, to restore the history of that page, because there are legitimate talk page posts in the history, and they can't just be deleted. Unfortunately that still leaves the copyright problem. Ideally the copyright infringing text should be removed by revision deletion, but since that text is mixed in with the genuine talk page messages, doing that would destroy the legitimate history. Also, history-merging would result in some edits apparently jumping from the newly created version of the talk page to the version turned into an article, and vice versa. I shall move the page to a subpage of the user talk page, remove all versions which clash with the newly created talk page there, history merge the two pages, copy all genuine talk page messages in the moved version of the page to the current talk page, and revision-delete the copyright infringement. JBW (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the course of doing all that i discovered that an editor called "Pppery" had already copied the genuine talk page messages over from the old page to the new one. If I'd realised that at first I probably would have just deleted the article, without bothering about moving and history merging. Oh well... JBW (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All T. V. Show and Movie Ratings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of Television_content_rating_system#United_States and Motion Picture Association film rating system Donaldd23 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sandbox that doesn't belong in article space, and clone of above articles per nom. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is actually a talk page moved to article space (albeit one mis-used)...thus there needs to be a page merge back to user's TP to maintain proper history. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note Nope, there should not be a merge back to the original author's talk page, but rather a move to a user's sandbox. Firstly, because talk pages are for communication between users, not for drafting articles. Secondly, because the author is very selfish (against the WP:OWN policy) about his draft, so putting the contents to the talk page is likely going to provoke conflicts between users talking to the author and the author defending his draft against adding 'unnecessary talks' to it. A sandbox is the right place for the job (if the page is not deleted, of course). --CiaPan (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note Might be worth noting that the creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely for violating user policy. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced embarrassing mess. SK2242 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Though made in good faith, this is totally unsourced and more of a blog post-esque page than anything. ser! (let's discuss it). 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO it's a CopyVio from the page linked at the bottom of the page. --CiaPan (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- 5 albert square (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This looks to be copied somewhat from the article linked at the bottom, for what that's worth. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putteridge High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in article are to the school website and to a site that does not mention the school. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS demonstrating N. This is a nice normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue:We have been here before and the arguments have not changed much, the article cites a primary source (allowed but not recommended) and that of an umbrella organisation which I consider too close to use except for notability arguments, but if you look at the first reference it refers to a successful Ofsted report which alone is the reliable source you need to find. The second reference, you claim does not mention the school- but when I do a Ctrl-F on the landing page I get nothing but when I look at the page it is mentioned in the centre of the page in an embedded pdf/gif. All you need to do is click on the menu tab our schools and there is a sub page. I would not quote either of these myself- but it is simply wrong to say they are not there. Looking closer at the subpage, Ofsted is mentioned again and there are details of a 22 million pound rebuild and that cannot happen with planning appraisal documents being publically available! There are sources a plenty. Look at the infobox, and there are two links to Ofsted Reports, and the GIAS site.

Staying on this AfD page, there is a helpful {{AFD help}}box.

I quote

When to use the deletion process?[edit]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles are not expected to be perfect. However, Wikipedia content, policies and qualities are to be expected in all articles. They are:

Neutral point of view – articles are expected to be written neutrally, representing views fairly and without bias. If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first.
Verifiability – articles should be based only on information published in reliable sources, and articles should cite those sources whenever possible.
No original research – articles should not present new theories, ideas, data, or analysis.
What Wikipedia is not – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is not a paper encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary, a soapbox, a crystal ball, a repository of links, or an indiscriminate collection of information.

Articles that don't conform to these policies can sometimes be improved to the point where they do conform. Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.

When to not use deletion process?[edit]

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

That, and the fact that 'nice normal schools' are valid topics in WP- there is no rule that they need to be exceptional, and SIGCOV does not mean a sig depth of coverage- merely that the article mentions them (ie they are not in a list, are not just there as captions or space fillers), this AfD should be rejected.ClemRutter (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1) This is not about clean up, it is about notability. 2) Database entries for mandated government reports for every state funded school receives are not SIGCOV and do not demonstrate notability. 3) Government sources about state funded schools are not independent sources and do not demonstrate notability.

Your statement, "SIGCOV does not mean a sig depth of coverage- merely that the article mentions them" shows you do not understand what SIGCOV means. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you are reading more into the definition than it actual says. I quote so other readers can follow:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Two examples are given, the example of trivial coverage is a fleeting mention of the target in a newspaper biography of someone else. Not to what we are discussing here- which is an in depth appraisal.

I have suggested elsewhere that you read a few Ofsted reports so you are familiar with what they are, how they change over time and the nature of the 8 to 11 pages of information that they contain. We have been here before. Government sources about state funded schools is language suitable for authoritarian states (I believe one of your interests) it certainly does not apply to the complexity of UK government with its checks and balances, and layers of responsibilities and independences. ClemRutter (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded the article, with it now having 10 sources, 4 of which are not from the school, its sponsore of the DfE. Bleaney (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources added do not demonstrate notability, they are local news stories which do not discuss the school directly or in depth as required by SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ofsted reports are independent and reliable and contain significant prose coverage of their subjects - far from "database entries". I don't know where the nominator is getting the idea from that they don't count because they are government mandated. The fact that they are government mandated simply leads to all schools subject to such reports being notable. And the idea that being nice and normal means non-notability would only be relevant if this was the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question just for clarification, because the article on Ofsted isn't clear about it, doesn't every school (or is it every government-supported school?) in the UK receive one of these reports every 3 years? If so, why is the existence of one evidence for notability, (And, inversely, if a report is usable as evidence for notability , if an article on a UK school is deleted, and there is no Ofsted report cited, isn't that evidence for a failure to check adequately, because there if most circumstances must be one.)

Secondly, isn't such a report a primary source, which needs to be interpreted by a secondary RS? It's a government document to be sure, but government documents, like other primary sources, are not necessarily self-explanatory. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt at clarification, basically every UK secondary school has sufficient material on it to fulfill WP evidence of notability. The structure of the UK government and funding systems ensure that. No school is a government school- they never have been, but over the years different ways of funding schools have evolved. Public, private, independent, grant maintained independent, council schools and with the involvement of the church voluntary aided, (that is Catholic) voluntary controlled (Anglican). There was a great bale out in 1944- so when I went to Primary School in 1955, a third of the schools running costs were paid for by the Cof E, and two thirds by Stockport Borough Council from the local rates and rate support grant. For secondary education my sister went to a Council secondary modern (100% funded from the rates) and I went to a direct grammar school that was founded in 1487. It had been through many financial changes- but for me, in exchange for direct per capita grant from HMG through Stockport, I got a free place. Other boys paid fees and other boys got grants from other local authorities such as Cheshire CC or Derbyshire. To make sense of this barrel of worms- the staff of each school is employed by the governors or trustees of the school. Each school will have articles of governance like a private firm- some will be not-for-profit charities.

To its ire, HMG cannot instruct a school, only advise them. The HMG through the DfE can propose a national curriculum but only advise compliance. Ofsted, ISI and two or three smaller organisations are authorised by DfE to run inspections and collect statistics. The independence of Ofsted is total, but it is subject to the law of the land. A school where my wife worked, got an appalling Ofsted report (many reasons but many were political). They took Ofsted to Court in a judicial review and defeated Ofsted- the chief inspector resigned and since then other schools have successed in doing the same. Schools have a legal obligation to publish Ofsted reports though they have of course not written them- this leads to confusion with readers who are used to other forms of judgement. Ofsted reports are picked up by local media. For us WP editors we only need to look in our own infobox, to see the URN with gives proof of the existence of the school, this links to what we know as GIAS. This is a .GOV.UK page that gives us stats, links to Ofsted reports and links to former and succeeding schools on the site- or with linked legal responsibility. In addition we have the Ofsted page which lists all existing inspections for that name. Bearing in mind we only have to prove that the site has generated independent descriptive material once- we are over the top. I agree that no UK school should be nominated for deletion without the URN having been located, and then GIAS and Ofsted being consulted. Quite simply no-one in the UK builds a 22m pound building with out some form of scrutiny and publicity being available, or maintains an existing one.

You question whether this is a regular tri-annual report or tick list. No, it happens unannounced, but the frequency of a Section 5 will be dependent on the previous report. These are supplemented by Section 8 inspections, which can be called to monitor a recommendation, collect statistics on a group of schools. If the inspectors have grave concerns they can trigger a full Section 5. What makes Ofsted reports so valuable to us is every remark is legally checked before publication. They are massive documents written in prescribed sections but these can lead anywhere. So not only does their existence prove WP:N but means they pass the higher standands needed to be used as a reference.

Now as you have asked the question, I am strengthened in my belief that WP:WPSCHOOLS is not doing a great job of making all this clear. I will put it on my watchlist if you have any further thoughts there is a space on my talkpage. Cheers.

ClemRutter (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter, the clearest explanation I've seen yet--perhaps the best service you could do WP would be to add some of this to the Osted page, which at the moment is too full of bureaucratic details to explain anything. (try , of course, to be sure that what you had has good sources). DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phil Bridger and ClemRutter have made compelling cases for the topic's notability. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to French mother sauces#History. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of French mother sauces[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Various sources, but reads like one person's WP:ESSAY. No obvious reason why a separate article to French mother sauces is needed, which creates risk of a WP:FORK (culinary pun not intended!). Perhaps merging into French mother sauces is an option. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article describes itself as an expansion of the French mother sauces article. If it’s not kept I’d prefer to see it merged there. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obviously. This is already heavily duplicative of French_mother_sauces#History, and new content can be merged. This was created last month by a good faith new editor, and per WP:MERGEINIT, "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BITE, WP:COMMON, and WP:CIVIL. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless fork; if there is any content genuinely worth salvaging, that should be merged to the 'mother article' (pun intended). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Controller[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, only source is a self published youtube review which does not indicate notability. The article is so old (2004) that it was in fact created by an IP user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One-off items are not notable, and no sources exist to support this article's existence. IceWelder [✉] 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. -- ferret (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero coverage from any reliable sources. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails WP:GNG; not even worth a merge or redirect Spiderone 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anantanitya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has not received any independent coverage. The only claim of notability made is that the major of a small Lithuanian city gave an appreciation award to the yoga studio that she works at. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of coverage is clearly not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS. Does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. BLPs should strictly follow guidelines. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the sources given are sufficient to show that WP:GNG is met. My own search also failed to find significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jammer (NES accessory)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely non-notable product, that I have been unable to find any decent sources for. Outside of "For Sale" sites or mirrors of this article, I'm not really finding anything on this product. Rorshacma (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing covering this, standard GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The company that made this also produced the Ultimate Superstick. I suggest that there shield be a deletion discussion for that as well.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crest Capital[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a new one for me: an article whose apparent reliable source might appear to be a US government document about the company, but where the document from the Small Business Administration [1] is actually a web forum where companies can post about themselves,"except when specifically noted, any views or opinions expressed on the Business.gov Community forums, blogs or member-contributed resources are those of the individual contributors... Information on the Business.gov Community site is provided as a service to the Internet community, "

The material itself is a promotional interview of the usual sort, with a few leading quest and 95% of the content is written by the president of the firm . Essentially all the other refs are either mere notices about funding, or general refs about atax avoidance strategy that do not even mention the company., such as [4], [7], [8]. Refs [9] and [10] are dead but are very unlikely to be RS about the company, DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and nom. As DGG points out, several of the links are dead, a blog, or are passing mentions. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double Player[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources for this. Non-notable. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my searches only seemed to come up with people trying to sell the product online; no references to aid in possibly expanding this article beyond the unsourced stub that it is Spiderone 18:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Nassari[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet the standards for creative artists--no third party substantial critical studies , no works in permanent collections of major museums The prizes mentioned are mostly just runners up or honourable mention, and even the ones he won are not ones that confer notability.

"Among the best nn wedding photographers" in a general newspaper article on weddings is not significant coverage.

The many references are just links to his works DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not add up to meeting the notability requirements for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources PangolinPedia 07:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth O'Reilly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG, indeed not meeting any Wikipedia guidelines. Mind that there are thousands of female footballers who actually do meet the criteria, but not this one. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can find only two sources that are more than just trivial mentions [2] [3] Spiderone 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gilbert[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG, indeed not meeting any Wikipedia guidelines. Mind that there are thousands of female footballers who actually do meet the criteria, but not this one. Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - played for Sydney and Sapphires only; can't find any major coverage under either club. I found this interview but it won't be enough for GNG on its own. Spiderone 20:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that this topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pastini Pastaria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

local restaurant of no apparent importance. Not a performance venues. Not a historic location. Not a famous chef or owner. At least one ref, #4, is a promotional interview Local reviews only, and, in any medium sized cities, that I think is no longer sufficient. we're not a travel guide or a restaurant guide.. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable restaurant. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I'm not prepared to drop what I'm doing to save this article in the next couple days, but as someone who has promoted ~20 articles about Portland restaurants recently, I can say there's enough coverage to meet eligibility criteria. Sources easily allow expansion with Description, History, and Reception sections, with details about the openings and closings of specific locations. There are also multiple detailed reviews published by journalistic publications. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've expanded the History section a bit. The page is up to 17 sources. Haven't even started on the Description (with focus on menu) or Reception sections yet. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's zero or at the most 1 (which isn't good enough for GNG) RS that isn't local covering this. SK2242 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bailey, Mike (2002-07-12). "Lunchspot: Pastini Pastaria -- Rustic Spot Offers Variety of Pasta Dishes". The Columbian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  The Columbian is a daily newspaper for Vancouver, Washington, and Clark County, Washington.
2. Anderson, John Gottberg (2015-07-03). "Eating Italian in the Old Mill: Dining at Pastini Pastaria and Flatbread Community Oven". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
3. Anderson, John Gottberg (2009-02-20). "Pasta by the river - Pastini Pastaria offers one of Bend's best meal values". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
4. Williams, Lee (2004-10-08). "Dining Cheap Eats Pastini Pastaria". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
5. Butler, Grant (2002-01-11). "Dining Pasta, Hold the Pretense". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
6. Russo, Ed (2017-07-03). "Pastini finds right spot for new home". The Register-Guard. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
7. Salvia, Vanessa (2017-08-17). "Pastini pursues pasta perfectionat new Oakway Center location". The Register-Guard. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
8. Hall, Bennett (2008-11-24). "A taste from Italy". Corvallis Gazette-Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
9. "Local restaurateurs to open new Pastini pastaria". Portland Business Journal. 2001-08-10. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
10. Culverwell, Wendy (2008-10-06). "No casual achievement: Pastini Pastaria wants to expand beyond Oregon and double in size by 2011". Portland Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pastini Pastaria to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Pastini Pastaria is an Oregon-based restaurant chain. The Columbian, a regional daily newspaper for Vancouver, Washington, and Clark County, Washington, reviewed Pastini Pastaria. A second regional source is The Oregonian, which has reviewed Pastini Pastaria multiple times. According to its Wikipedia article, The Oregonian is "the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation."
The restaurant has been reviewed in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2015, and 2017. The restaurant chain has received sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of 16 years, which strongly establishes notability.
Cunard (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, Cunard, thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Cunard: FYI, the company has rebranded as Pastini. I'd move the page but I think doing so is discouraged during active deletion discussions. I'll plan to move if the article is kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard—not much more I can say except that there's enough non-routine coverage in sources with wide enough regional scope; certainly the article can be made reasonably long and the sources span a wide period of time. — Bilorv (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gül Eroğlu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as never played in a league listed at WP:FPL; nothing found in a search of Gnews, ProQuest or a Turkish language search to show WP:GNG being met. Spiderone 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. If improved to be more encyclopedic, the article should be submitted to WP:AfC before being moved to mainspace. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephino RPG[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. The only reliable, third-party source I can find is igromania.ru, which is already cited in the article. But at five short paragraphs, it's rather trivial coverage—and its coverage of a successful Kickstarter, not even review of the game itself. This Wikipedia article was written by its creator and includes plenty of self-serving claims. If the game does become notable at a later time, it can be recreated by an editor without a clear conflict of interest. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero non-database hits in WP:VG/SE is quite indicative of lacking notability. IceWelder [✉] 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple references to the project, some in Russian, some in Spanish. I am surprised that you assumed I wrote the article; I am pleased to let you know that the article was not written by me but by Svetlana Nelipa; I have no affiliation with her or the website igromania.ru and I never even contacted them about the project. Apart from these articles there are currently 40+ websites actively using the plugin/game (on WordPress.org) and 71 people bought the game on CodeCanyon with 7 reviews of 5 stars. The project is young but it is noteworthy. MarkJivko (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you wrote the Wikipedia article. I've edited my comment accordingly. The references you just added are all copies of the igromania.ru source, not separate coverage. And it doesn't matter how many people bought or play the game, but how much coverage it has in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is almost none, which means it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Also keep in mind that, per our conflict of interest policy, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article and should instead suggest changes on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, give one example of a self-serving claim? The project has received significant coverage considering its age in my opinion. I noted the conflict of interest here User:MarkJivko and never boasted about any feature, never said "it's the best", "World's first" etc., presenting only the facts. I could also include reviews such as this one but I don't know if that is considered "significant". If you're being nihilist, then nothing is relevant/significant. MarkJivko (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything touting the features or status of the game is inherently self-serving when added by you, the creator: independently developed...The game allows admins to customize all aspects of the gameplay, from the game mechanics to the storyline and game design...The game can be easily customized by the game master in the point-and-click admin interface. Stephino RPG goes beyond a classic RPG game, allowing players to create and share their own levels of a platformer game...Stephino RPG ran a successful campaign on KickStarter in early 2021 and is still in active development. Our goal on Wikipedia to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not let the subjects (or their creators/developers) steer the article. The only reliably-sourced statement in our article is The game can be easily customized, and that's clearly based on your own information because it was published before the Kickstarter was complete. Woodroar (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-serving if it's just a plain fact

"allows admins to customize the game" - this is factually true, and if you want the "source" there's nothing better than the actual source code openly available on WordPress.org
"game can be easily customized [...] in the admin interface" - this is also factually true, just check these screenshots (I am not affiliated with this website)
"goes beyound a classig RPG [...] platformer game" - this is also factually correct and not even something to brag about; yes, the game also has a platformer element to it
"ran a successful campaign on KickStarter" - and I'm going to quote you on this, "its coverage of a successful Kickstarter [...] by igromania.ru"; it was not a failed campaign, therefore it was successful; I simply don't know a synonym that is less "self-serving"

Even before the KickStarter campaign began the game was available in a free public beta (between August 11 2020 and December 11 2020). The fact that it's customizable is not based on my statements from the campaign but on the game's source code.

I would also argue that Phaser lacks in the references department: phaser.io and photonstorm.com are both affiliated with the Phaser project and the only "outside" links are tutorials on Phaser written by its author. It is my opinion that the Phaser page should exist despite not having any "real" article written about it. That framework is awesome in its own right.

I am going to recap this discussion:

You said "The only reliable, third-party source I can find is [...] rather trivial coverage of a successful Kickstarter [...] written by its creator [...] self-serving claims" and "[the article] can be recreated by an editor without a clear conflict of interest"
You later corrected the claim with "I meant that you wrote the Wikipedia article"
The article is not a game review but I never stated it was; also it is not strictly forbidden for me as an author to contribute and I did make a public disclaimer about this on my profile
"Anything touting the features or status of the game is inherently self-serving when added by you, the creator"
I strongly disagree with this statement. If an author corrects an article about himself/herself with facts (such as dates, places etc.) that is not self-serving. I do agree that "positively lighting" a subject is self-serving but I have not done that. No metaphors/epithets were used, no adjectives. Is the statement "this is a game" self-serving only because I said it? Again - I'm publicly declaring my conflict of interest.

I promise to propose changes on the talk page from now on instead of directly editing it. I know I am strongly discouraged from editing directly but the article had to start somewhere (the article only has 9 sentences).

Please allow this to grow into something better in the following few short months.

MarkJivko (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify As WP:TOOSOON. If the creator believes it will improve then let it go through the proper channels for WP:COI content so it can be judged by a reviewer with knowledge of notability policy. Right now it's just self promotion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - in complete agreement with Zxcvbnm Spiderone 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I also agree with Zxcvbnm; I have learned a lot about the rules here on WikiPedia and I now have deep respect for all of your efforts MarkJivko (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahtiyar Topal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per WF and Soccerway; has never managed or played in a league listed at WP:FPL. Appears to fail WP:GNG as searches in Google News, ProQuest and DuckDuckGo did not yield any significant coverage. None of the sources in the article show notability either. Spiderone 19:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Lawlor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in a search. I found a trivial mention in the Irish Independent, a name check in the 42, this very, very brief article in The Irish Times and this match report. Spiderone 18:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thugpun[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately I don't see a case for notability here. "One of the first" Punjabi-Indian rappers to break into Canada's mainstream music industry, not "the first", therefore no immediate claim to notability; I don't see WP:NPERSON passed, or WP:NACTOR, and WP:NMUSIC looks also to not be a pass unless someone can bring reliable sources for passing the "the most prominent of the local scene of a city" clause of #7. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are WP:REFBOMBing of Discogs, YouTube and IMDb - all of which are WP:UGC and none of which is WP:RS. My searches also turned up Instagram, Facebook and Spotify (yet more UGC), but absolutely nothing third-party and indepth as required by RS. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I came across the bio and first noticed persistent vandalism and WP:BLP violations. Soon thereafter the notability issue became apparent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing outside of the usual user-generated 'references' Spiderone 15:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annorikkal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that unsourced articles regularly exist for 15 years is a blemish on Wikipedia. It also is why some hoaxes have existed for crazily long times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Kher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author and completely unsourced article. Fails WP:NAUTHOR RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an academic nor as an editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. --Gazal world (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since one review was found, if others are located, ping for undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee (2008 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's one reliable review: https://m.rediff.com/movies/2008/mar/10ssjubilee.htm Kailash29792 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one reliable review is not enough to pass WP:GNG, and I could find no others. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solipeta Ramalinga Reddy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Cupper52 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPOL as Reddy served as a member of the state legislative assembly. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOLITICIAN as a former MLA. What was the nominator thinking of by saying he fails? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former elected member of a state legislative assembly. Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colo Tavernier[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Cupper52 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a ludicrous nomination. Deadline and Variety both published long by-lined obituaries upon her death last year and she won a César Award in 1985.[4][5] pburka (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka's very clear sources. matt91486 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka - also some coverage in Gbooks that could be used as a starting point Spiderone 14:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Chutima[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does get some hits in Thai but none of it seems to tick both boxes in terms of being reliable and in-depth Spiderone 10:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Benigno[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without any references. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is now one reference. Whether he is really notable, I have no idea. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one reference is never enough to establish a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references. He won several prizes in notable festivals both as actor and director (Venice, Giffoni, Terra di Siena [it]), had main roles in notable films (Forever Mery, Boys on the Outside, Anni 90, Anni 90: Parte II, etc.), participated as a guest singer at the Sanremo Music Festival 2009.--Alienautic (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, lazy nomination without any attempt of WP:BEFORE. A 30+ years career in multible notable works, as the WhatLinksHere shows, and hundreds of articles in Italian Google News, and dozens of them consisting of significant coverage. --151.52.238.2 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of material sourced from multiple reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deltion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved per WP:HEY and the WP:GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite happy to keep this now it has references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bertram[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person with no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. The sources cited seem to be paid pieces, interviews with the subject, blogs, and unreliable sources which are not considered reliable and independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMO with no evidence of notability whatever. FalconK (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a far too overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human Universals[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notibility(books) guidelines DHHornfeldt (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In lieu of deletion, a redirect to Cultural universal would be appropriate, since that article reflects the topic that the book Human Universals is about and cites the book. I don't yet have an opinion about whether this article should be kept or not, but if the consensus is not to keep, a redirect would be preferable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Universals already redirects to Cultural universal. DHHornfeldt (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be precise, Human universals with a lower case "universals" redirects to Cultural universal. Human Universals with a capitalized "Universals" is a separate article about a book by Donald Brown (anthropologist). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is written by a prominent scholar in the field of anthropology and this is his best-known book. Most importantly, it meets WP:BOOKCRIT Criteria #1 because it's been reviewed in several top-tier anthropology research journals: American Anthropologist and American Ethnologist, both published by the American Anthropological Association; and Man, which is published by the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK by a wide margin: there's the reviews above, some more reviews [6][7], plus in-depth discussion in other notable books (e.g. Pinker's The Blank Slate, Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee, Antweiler's Our Common Denominator) and dozens of other scholarly works. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roshani Shetty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was previously deleted through an AFD process in 2017 as the subject failed to satisfy WP:NACTOR. She grabbed two films since then, one of which is yet to come out per source cited and for the 2nd one, i could n't find any third party, reliable sources that confirm that. Even if there are sources for the claim, she fails WP:NACTOR as hasn't played significant roles in multiple notable films. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no indication that she has reached notability since the last AfD. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still does not reach the level of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirali descended from the mountain[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shirali Muslimov might be best I think. I'm finding little to nothing when searching "Şirəli dağdan endi", suggesting that this isn't a particularly notable film, but the source used in the article seems to suggest that the film at least exists so maybe redirect is a good option Spiderone 17:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spiderone. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shirali Muslimov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested; currently WP:TNT-worthy. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agami Hando[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL (article previously deleted for the same reason). The new version was created by an SPA and I wouldn't be surprised if this SPA is linked to the other SPA (possibly the article's subject based on their username) that created the original article, attempted to recreate at a different title a week after the original AfD, and has been the main editor of this version since its recreation. Number 5 7 15:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, as non-notable per GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just about scrapes an NFOOTBALL pass according to the Soccerway ref in the article (the Albanian second tier is listed at WP:FPL so is apparently fully pro) Spiderone 15:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only very trivially passes NFOOTBALL; the failure of GNG is more important Spiderone 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Fidelity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is promotional, written like an advertisement. It is not clear that this corporation is notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK Kindness Movement[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that it was ever an actual organisation. It appears it was some sort of PR initiative by Act Against Bullying, but doesn't appear to be notable from any sources. It's virtually an orphan article Seaweed (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling the subject returns nothing but blog posts, social media posts, and clones of this same Wikipedia article. Clearly non-notable. Zacwill (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. // Timothy :: t | c | a 04:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suprabhatam (1998 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any RS for the film. Only one, and that is for the songs. Still not enough to save this article. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards re-nominating if anyone wants to have another run at this. Daniel (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Njoku[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and poorly sourced article about a non-notable businessman. Initially created by an account whose only other contribution is an article about his company, suggesting WP:UPE. Although WP:BOMBARDed with sources, the coverage is of iROKO and not of him, except in a couple cases where it's insubstantive profiles or non-independent interviews. FalconK (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accepted at AFC by Sulfurboy, with possible notability-establishing sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm away due to work so I'm going to have to be brief and might not have time to respond to anything. This feels more like an indictment on the page creators/editors instead of an on point address of whether or not the subject is notable. A very short and cursory google search confirms coverage of the subject, albeit one must sift out the large PR rocks. I'd suggest to nom to correct the issue either via maintenance tags, WP:ANI or WP:COIN. AfD is not a catch-all for shit pages. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you could link a few? I also did such a search and I didn't come across anything. I do this quite a lot and when I find sources I do indeed tag the article or improve it myself; I'm not trying to use this venue to force page improvement. I really don't think he meets any of our notability guidelines. FalconK (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Falcon Kirtaran, Seriously dude? This took all of five minutes...
    https://www.newsweek.com/nollywood-jason-njoku-iroko-525837
    https://thenationonlineng.net/jason-njoku-nbc-boss-disagree-on-nbc-code/
    https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/04/business/jason-njoku-iroko-nigeria/index.html
    https://www.modernghana.com/nollywood/34163/iroko-tv-boss-jason-njoku-caught-in-dubai-while.html
    https://www.pulse.ng/news/irokotvs-jason-njoku-i-feel-no-connection-with-nigeria/hmxzhj8
    I'd highly advise checking out WP:BEFORE, especially if you do this "quite a lot" Sulfurboy (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's go through these. It doesn't seem to me to be so clear cut. FalconK (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Falcon Kirtaran,
        I'd suggest a revisit of WP:SIGCOV. Starting with newsweek, even if I agreed that the article isn't about him, anyone can conclude that coverage of him is beyond a "trivial mention". The first two paragraphs (164 words) is directly about the subject and not dependent on quotes from the subject.
        The nation: WP:SIGCOV is not dependent on "shortness" of an article, but instead whether or not it's a trivial mention. Considering the article is only about the subject, it's not trivial.
        The cnn article has a 200 word lead that is not dependent on the interview with the subject.
        MG article, I don't even know what nonsense you're talking about with tabloid coverage and what that has to do with notability.
        Pulse substantiates coverage, albeit cannot be used as an independent source.
        This subject has coverage from CNN, Newsweek and the leading newspaper and Nigeria and you're seriously here trying to argue he's not notable? This is starting to feel as if you have some vendetta towards the subject or something and feels shady. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't. Being quoted in the press doesn't make a person notable, though. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources about this dude, but I'm going to leave this here and see who else might want to chime in. FalconK (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Falcon Kirtaran
https://www.newsweek.com/nollywood-jason-njoku-iroko-525837	? Relies heavily on quotes from the subject	? The lede is about him, but the article is about how he founded the company and the conclusion is about the company, so I'm not sure the article is really about him	? Unknown
https://thenationonlineng.net/jason-njoku-nbc-boss-disagree-on-nbc-code/	? Most of the article is a quote from the subject	? The article is extremely short	? Unknown
https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/04/business/jason-njoku-iroko-nigeria/index.html	Dependent source because it's an interview with the subject	? The article is extremely short	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/nollywood/34163/iroko-tv-boss-jason-njoku-caught-in-dubai-while.html	? Most of the article is a quote from the subject	? This is tabloid coverage but we're not claiming he's notable as a celebrity entertainer	? Unknown
https://www.pulse.ng/news/irokotvs-jason-njoku-i-feel-no-connection-with-nigeria/hmxzhj8	Dependent source because it's an interview with the subject	?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 10:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "AfD is not a catch-all for shit pages" -- I just have to say how much I love this line, @Sulfurboy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Fast Company article is in depth. he also has coverage in Forbes, Techcrunch, etc. Meets WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anupriya Laxmi Katoch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress with no reliable sources. A Google search turns up a few sources and none of them appear to be reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The air hostess training school is not a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Closing it early since it's so obvious. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayr College[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former non-notable college, has since been merged into Ayrshire College. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; people might search for this. I don't really think this warranted an AfD. It should have just been uncontroversially redirected to Ayrshire College. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ayrshire College, there isn't even anything to merge. Kilmarnock College is in a similar situation. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palki Sharma Upadhyay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:G4 declined as the article is different enough from the previous one. In my opinion, there is still a concern over WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BASIC. Whilst there are a lot of references this time, most are either primary, trivial mentions or sources written by her, such as this. For someone to meet notability criteria, generally, they would need to have people writing about them as well. I could not find anyone writing extensively about Upadhyay in a WP:BEFORE search. As discussed in the previous AfD, the awards don't satisfy ANYBIO either. Spiderone 09:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is wholly promotional and mostly rely on primary sources. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Just carrying out day-job as journalist does not in itself establishes nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article that fails to show enough notability to meet any of the various guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional context without any reliable sources, and just is like a locally journalist.Fatzaof (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:JOURNALIST and most of the sources are from WION, the news channel she works for. - SUN EYE 1 07:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Tech Controller[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced article. No good sources I can find, just blogs and Wikipedia mirror sites. I guess it could redirect to Nintendo Entertainment System, but the controller isn't mentioned there are all, and with no RS mentioning it we couldn't add any content about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:I oppose,I now added a reference(I cannot find much more refs as most of the websites on that topic are mirror sites)

Simulator-master (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simulator-master, the source you added is Esty - it's a commercial site, where someone is someone selling one of these, it's not a reliable source. We're not concerned about whether these things exist or not, I'm sure that they do, the question is whether they are notable. As a commercial product, it would need to pass the guidelines at WP:NCORP to be notable, which this clearly doesn't from the complete dearth of sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to establish any notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any additional sources. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of sources. This article was created unsourced in 2004, when sourcing standards for new artices weren't particularly stringent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One-off Etsy item is far from anything we'd want to cover here. IceWelder [✉] 19:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and everyone else. I could not find any reliable sources whatsoever. I think we need to look at all of the NES accessories that have articles and check to see if they should be deleted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Player and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkanoid Controller. My main concern is they might have been covered by old enthusiast magazines that are difficult to access. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Jammer (NES accessory). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Super Controller Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. -- ferret (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clapper[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Rank not notable, nor was being shot down and rescued in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does he not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:SOLDIER...but honestly from a look at the references I'm pretty sure this article is a coatrack - created by a long-since blocked sockpuppeteeer, I'll also note - intended to actually be advertising his lawyer's office. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not remotely notable as a lawyer. His actions as a soldier are equally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mill architecture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible vaporware; Nothing to show for progress in over a decade; Article also reads like an advertisement. Hexware (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not Architecture so I've removed it from the list of Architecture related discussions) on the basis it's very much avery lengthy advert based almost entirely from the source company and developer. Insufficient evidence of independent reliable coverage online to show it's worth saving (though 7 years of advertising on Wikipedia means the article has already served its intended purpose). Sionk (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. The EE Times article comes closest; that's a reliable source, but it's an interview where Ivan Godard, the inventor, obviously a primary source, provides all the content. None of the other sources are helpful. The Hackaday and Linley Group sources offer helpful secondary coverage but can't be taken as reliable as we use the term. I agree the content is also problematic (none of it is sourced) but content is not a concern at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Problematic computer-related article that is very "tech wordy", but not otherwise notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bojana Panić[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model, nothing to suggest notability. Fails WP:NMODEL. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I PRODded in November. Just enough to avoid a7, but nothing to back it up. StarM 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn. Creator is a seasoned editor and one of the most prolific editors on WP. (non-admin closure) Bingobro (Chat) 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont Inn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in the article are nothing more than local listings and passing mentions. Couldn't find anything else on the Inn. Fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just created the stub, expanding now based on Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble (online video management)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rumble (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and I'm not seeing any evidence of satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The article was previously nominated for deletion by Störm at Rumble (website). GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not even including the coverage already cited in the article, I easily found [8][9][10]. I'd consider this substantial coverage per the guideline you linked. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This website is a significant player in the video sharing game, and is growing fast. Whether or not one agrees with its content, it is clearly worthy of having an article.Vgy7ujm (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources from Elliot321 clearly establish WP:NCORP beyond any reasonable doubt. Assuming others feel similarly, please snow close this before it stays on the page too long. GSS, I urge you to withdraw the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Mahmoodi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needs a reputation check EnReVse (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete This page was recently created by User:Amandapm111, who has been globally locked for long-term abuse. This presumably therefore satisfies WP:G5. The article itself is blatantly promotional and borderline nonsense. Darren-M talk 02:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Darren-M:--WP:G5 applies if the page was created AFTER a ban and if there are no substantial edits by other users. Neither of these criterion were true with--EnReVse (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Globally locked sock. Darren-M talk 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EnReVse, On the basis of the lock being for long-term abuse, we can be fairly sure that the user is already locked and is therefore in scope for G5. There are no substantial edits to the article by other users - it's probable the IP is the same person, and the rest of the edits are reversions or concerned with the deletion itself. Best, Darren-M talk 02:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::Darren-M Make no mistake about the article edits Many users have made useful edits Actually, criteria 1 does apply as this is a returning sock. As you pointed out, criteria 2 does not: Of the 13+ items the banned editor wanted listed, only 3 people and the primary topic remain. Additional topics have been added--EnReVse (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Globally locked sock. Darren-M talk 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC) * Keep The article was made before the announcement that the user is a sock and many users made useful edits in it, so it does not include quick deletion.--EnReVse (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Globally locked sock. Darren-M talk 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search (after removing self-published sources) reveal nothing of note "Amir+Mahmoodi"+-wikipedia+-linkedin+-facebook+-twitter+-medium+-pinterest&oq="Amir+Mahmoodi"+-wikipedia+-linkedin+-facebook+-twitter+-medium+-pinterest. Searching in persian language sources for "امیر محمودی‎‎" did not reveal anything relevant to this either (plently of stuff for people who are not violinist/footballers though). Could not find anything to support the claim that Esteghlal F.C.currently has this individual on their team. Delete as likely wp:hoax. Also interesting is this diff [11] - possibly another sockpuppet? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the user who created this article, and who made that diff have been globally blocked for long-term abuse.BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has a good reputation.Neuosha Mz (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Globally locked sock. Darren-M talk 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepHe is a famous Iranian football player who can be seen in Transfermarket and Persian League.He has also composed several series.His profile should stay.Tina tabarakondak (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Globally locked sock. Darren-M talk 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt (unreliable source) shows him as an U21 player and IMDb (also unreliable) is a different person... Spiderone 09:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; the claims that he has played for Esteghlal are completely false and the Soccerway link is to a different player Spiderone 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - claims he has played professionally are not verified, appears to fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have struck the comments & votes of confirmed socks. I note Praxidicae has now re-tagged this for G5 (presumably on the basis that objections were by socks), so I think that is a better venue rather than waiting for AfD to complete? Darren-M talk 14:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entire article is just vandalism and there is no good reason for dragging this out for 7 days. Spiderone 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadelle Ranchos Nine, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like with Bonadelle Ranchos Five, California, the only coverage I can find is for Bonadelle Ranchos, California itself, not Bonadelle Ranchos Nine. Might be a subdivision or housing development of some sort, as there appears to be a series of these. FWIW, the businesses in this place according to Google Maps have an address in Madera. I'm just not convinced that this place meets WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)*[reply]

Comment. In did a Google search for "Bonadelle Ranchos- Subdivision #9" California filetype:pdf and came up with two PDF files. The first was Resolution to form Zone of Benefit “D” (CSA-22D) within County Service Area 22 (CSA-22)., DOC. ID NUMBER 2030, DATE REC’D 7/27/2016. On pages 1 (bottom) -2 (top), it stated

In 2009, the LAFCO conducted a Municipal Services Review (MSR) for the greater Rio Mesa area which included studying all special district municipal services provided in the area. This included County Service Areas (CSA) 16 (Sumner Hill), 19 (Rolling Hills), 22 (Rio Mesa); Maintenance Districts 14 (Bonadelle Ranchos- Subdivision #9) and 57 (Brickyard Industrial Subdivision), Sierra Foothills Public Utility District, and Root Creek Water District.

The final one was Approval of a Resolution to Establish Zone of Benefit “E” within County Service Area 22 (CSA-22), DOC. ID NUMBER 3574, DATE REC’D (none). It had the same text as above on the bottom of page 1. Both mentioned Bonadelle Ranchos- Subdivision #9.

There is also a Bonadelle Ranchos Nine and a Bonadelle Ranchos Five mentioned in Madera County, California Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, February 2011 on page 1-5 under 1.3.1.5 Unincorporated Communities - Western Madera County subhead. Paul H. (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Paul H. (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't think to search with subdivision. I believe one of those pdfs did come up on my search, but my browser wouldn't open it. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. More references to Bonadelle Ranchos no. 9 and by searching for Bonadelle Ranchos no. 9 in the search menu at Planning Forms and Documents. An example is Proposed Budgets for Special Districts, Madera County, For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017. On page 21, this document states:

Maintenance District 14 – Bonadelle Ranchos No. 9, 2020-2021 Recommended Road Maintenance Budget
Maintenance District 14 is located in Madera County Supervisory District 1, approximately thirteen miles east of Madera and accessed west from State Highway 41 and south from Avenue 15. The District contains 183 parcels served by 3.90 miles of paved roads.
Bonadelle Ranchos Number 9 was formed On August 4, 1964 by Resolution 64-341 and is approximately 309 acres in size. When the District was formed there was no direct assessment set for road maintenance. This District is pre-Proposition 13 and receives a portion of property taxes to assist in road maintenance. These roads are minor rural County roads which are included in the County’s maintained road system. Paul H. (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SECONDARY and WP:MILL. It existed, and is verified by primary sources, but not in secondary sources. Ordinary ranch that fails my standards as a run-of-the-mill place; there are tens of thousands of special districts in the United States. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to GEOFEAT, this must pass GNG. The sources in the article do not have SIGCOV from IS RS sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. The sources mentioned above do not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and search results showing county forms and documents are not SIGCOV, they just a mention of the name. County records might be used to V content, but they are not IS for demonstrating notability. Simply naming a location is not legal recognition and it is not SIGCOV for GEOLAND. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Moulton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as nominated already listed two reviews in major newspapers discussing the subject's work directly and in-depth, and I found and added to the article 16 more reviews (including reviews of one more book and five more major-newspaper reviews). An easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If there was SIGCOV about the author, the article would be longer a two sentence author blub from a review.

Sources in article are reviews of two books, none of them contain SIGCOV about the author. Notability is not inherited from works, except in exceptional circumstances described in AUTHOR #3.

Subject does not pass WP:AUTHOR which requires a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and there is no indication in the reviews and none has been placed in the article that the two items mentioned in the article meet this criteria. If this criteria was met, there would be published information about the subject and not just academic journal reviews about the works. Simply having reviewed works does not meet AUTHOR.

Additions to the article are WP:REFBOMB: "...to load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject."

I'm sure this is a wonderful author and person, but this is a BLP. BLPs need to strictly follow WP:N guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For athletes, we expect SIGCOV about their athletic accomplishments, not their taste in food. For politicians, we expect SIGCOV about their political accomplishments, not their daily jogging workout. What on earth makes you think that for authors, the SIGCOV should be about other things than what they authored? And if you actually read what you quoted of REFBOMB you would see the text "without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic", which obviously is an inaccurate description of this case, so that essay is inapplicable here and your reference to it is unhelpful. And finally, you keep going on about the fine print in AUTHOR #3, but it was really more #4c that I was thinking of. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be SIGCOV about the subject. There is no evidence from the reviews that the two works are considered a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" or have "won significant critical attention" They are normal academic journal reviews. // Timothy :: talk 08:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What could "significant critical attention" mean but attention from critics and reviewers? And why are you still quoting AUTHOR#3 as if it's relevant to my opinion when I already told you it isn't? Also, you are not demonstrating your competence at reading by denying the clear statement in my original comment here about major newspaper reviews, or the clear existence of those reviews among the ones listed in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books are notable and respected, cover historical figures, societies, and famous authors, plus there's so many reviews of the books in major newspapers like The Times - major articles, not just little reviews. (I started the article.) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is clearly an author of two notable books. But WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing here suggests the subject is notable herself yet. But the sources gathered are sufficient to at the very least stub each book, if this is closed as keep and it hasn't been done so I'll ask the closing admin to userfy this for me so I can stub them myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote per arguments and consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. The question of whether notability is "inherited" is beside the point; this isn't like making an article about somebody because they have a famous relative. People are noteworthy if their actions have been significant, and writing books is what an author does. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally WP:AUTHOR in practice requires at minimum two books which each receive at least one or two reviews, preferably from different sources. This is easily met here. I don't think the subject yet meets WP:PROF; the academic book with CUP has healthy citations in Google Scholar (32) but there's nothing else yet. The creator of this and other articles is a relatively new editor who is picking, on the whole, notable topics but not always succeeding in demonstrating their significance in the way the 'pedia expects. It would be more positive to attempt to help out, rather than attempt to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 books with plenty of reviews is enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Piotrus, I think we're all looking at WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: the person has created works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Russ Woodroofe, Fair point but I still feel uneasy if the entry is basically a CV-entry plus a list of reviews. Does it really add any value to the project? I still think we would be better served by having articles about the books, not the author, in such cases. It's the books that matter, not the author. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, I think the argument at that point is to try to expand the article over time, rather than delete. Meanwhile, having the author's page serve as an enriched disambiguation page seems to add a bit of value to the project. I do agree with you that most authors with only a single reviewed work should be redirected to an article on the book. Remark that some authors of mainstream-ish fiction, whose notability I think is beyond question, also have rather brief pages outside of the list of books: Patricia Briggs is an example that comes to my mind. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~per nom.~~ - The subject's two books have received awards, including 2014 Book of the Year by History Today and runner-up for the Royal History Society’s 2015 Whitfield Prize. The subject appeared on C-SPAN's BookTV. The subject has received wide coverage and meets WP:GNG and passes WP:NAUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, per David Epstein and AuthorAuthor. Several other significant awards listed in the article, including a 2019 Agatha Award and a 2020 Anthony Award. Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR#4(c). Likely passes WP:GNG as well. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is an author of two significant works. --Gazal world (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadelle Ranchos Five, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find coverage for Bonadelle Ranchos, California itself, but I'm striking out on newspapers.com, google, and google books searching for Bonadelle Ranchos Five. I'm not convinced that whatever this #5 one is, it meets WP:GEOLAND, it appears to be some sort of subdivision or housing development, but I can frankly find about nothing discussing this in depth. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bonadelle Ranchos Five and Bonadelle Ranchos Nine are mentioned in Madera County, California Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, February 2011 on page 1-5 under 1.3.1.5 Unincorporated Communities.

More references to Bonadelle Ranchos no. 5 by searching for Bonadelle Ranchos no. 5 in the search menu at Planning Forms and Documents. An example is Proposed Budgets for Special Districts, Madera County, For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2017. On page 13, this document states:

Maintenance District 9 – Bonadelle Ranchos No. 5, 2020-2021 Recommended Road Maintenance Budget
Maintenance District 9 is located in Madera County Supervisory District 1, four miles northeast of Madera and is accessed south from State Highway 145. This District has approximately 146 parcels served by 3.77 miles of paved roads.
Bonadelle Ranchos No. 5 was formed on April 14, 1964 by Resolution 64-143 and is approximately 374 acres in size. When the District was formed there was no direct assessment set for road maintenance. This area is pre-Proposition 13 and receives a portion of property tax to assist in road maintenance. These roads are minor rural County roads which are included in the County’s maintained road system. Paul H. (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete: According to GEOFEAT, this must pass GNG. The sources in the article do not have SIGCOV from IS RS sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. The sources mentioned above are a mention in Madera County, California Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and search results showing county forms and documents, no SIGCOV, just a mention of the name. Simply naming a location is not legal recognition and it is not SIGCOV for GEOLAND. County records may verify its existence, but are not IS with SIGCOV for demonstrating notability. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The policy-based deletion arguments are very persuasive in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Irims[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "serial entrepeneur". Sources are PR releases, self-published, or otherwise irrelevant to the notability of the subject of the article. Nothing on searching which would meet the threshold of WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG either. Jack Frost (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I should be able to salvage the article and cleanup for compliance to meet the threshold of WP:ANYBIO for the patent registration for Prepaid solar electricity for variable loads in South Africa. TJO28 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A patent grant does not meet WP:ANYBIO by any definition I'm aware of. All news hits for his name are about Wisolar, which has only the most tenuous claim to notability itself since it's all routine announcements. I'll point out that most of TJO28's contributions are either adding Tonye's name to lists of significant people or creating Tonye Irims and Wisolar - I'm not gonna make any accusations, but I would like to offer @User:TJO28 a quick reminder that if there is any association with the person or the company or compensation involved in this editing, it must be disclosed. FalconK (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no association or compensation attached to the publishing of both articles. Every addition made to every list is valid as regards the subject of this article. @User:Falcon Kirtaran, you already made accusations. I would encourage you to kindly go through my contributions before concluding. Also, there has been a clean up in the citations and there are no self-published articles among the references. TJO28 (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second FalconK's concerns. See opinion and comment below for more details. Swearing that things aren't what they appear is not always sufficient to take concerns away! gidonb (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article in "The New York Times Daily" looks impressive this would be sufficient only for half the WP:GNG and still further from the professional standard. Plus looks can be deceiving. "The New York Times Daily" is a blog or PR website that abuses the reputation and graphics of The New York Times. So rather than at 50% of the GNG, we are really at 0% of the GNG. So while there are many entrepreneurs in Africa deserving of Wikipedia entry, the topic of this article is not one of them. At the very least at this time. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also that we have exactly the same picture as said article.[12] Possibly the authors are the same. At the very least the rights over the picture and benefits of keeping it need to be checked. Likely also the user behind the pictures (a second one is on the company website) and articles. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess that nytimesdaily site is! Fortunately, this is the only article on Wikipedia to cite it. Thanks for pointing it out! FalconK (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - FalconK, I once got referred to a WP banned publication list, I think after linking an article in the Mail on Sunday or something of yellowish sorts. Does this ring a bell? I could try to add "The New York Times Daily" to that page. gidonb (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're likely thinking of WP:DEPRECATED or WP:RSP. But if it's only referred to by one page it's not likely we'd be able to get it added there. I just crawled it for the wayback machine and it took only a few minutes; I think it's a fairly small site, perhaps one person (I found their fiverr). FalconK (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - FalconK, thanks for this information! gidonb (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn — I failed to notice that some of the sources were local newspapers, not just newsletters. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland Symphony Orchestra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Deprodded in 2017. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the WP:GNG. The stale failed PROD is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable, and although everything is sourced from offline local newspapers, I see no reason to doubt their accuracy. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umid Zokirov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Uzbek actor. Sources are variations on IMDB, blogs, or user generated content sites. Nothing in the article or on BEFORE search meets the threshold of WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails NACTOR and GNG; not a single source that shows actual depth of coverage and not even a suggestion of notability Spiderone 15:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. I just realized it was already nominated here. The appropriate templates were not placed on the page or talk page. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Bigo" Barnett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol per Wikipedia:BLP1E. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator I just realize this was already nominated for deletion here. So, I'm going to close this. It appears the first nomination templates were not placed on the page or talk page. Missvain (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit#St. Alfred Catholic School. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Alfred Catholic School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, closed primary education school with no distinguishable history. Could possible be merged to Taylor Preparatory High School, which now occupies the building, but the two have no relation other than location. —Notorious4life (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it takes very substantial sourcing to show that a school in the US that was not at the high school level is notable. That is entirely lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_schools_in_the_Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Detroit with an entry under the "Former K-8, middle, and elementary schools in Wayne County" section. Orville^talk 06:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Orville. I agree that the current occupant of the building would be a poor target. 174.254.192.101 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.